Again, this is yet another attempt to prevent engaging with the debate and just to rubbish the source. Surely it must be easy to provide much better counter-arguments? Apparently not. I am not fooled by such behaviour and neither are many others.
Antarcticice steadily works through his checklist for rubbishing opponents:
1. Is the source "on message"? If so believe completely and ignore any possible concerns.
2. Wrong answer to any of the following will permit the information to be dismissed out of hand:
a) Do we know the original source?
b) Is the source a "non-approved" one?
c) Did the person have a PhD?
d) Was the PhD in one of the approved subjects?
e) Can they be associated with a "non-approved" person or organisation like Heartland?
f) Have they ever been associated with funding from a "non-approved" source like Big Oil or Tobacco.
g) Are they just spokespeople for someone with an opposing view?
h) If you run out of ideas check Sourcewatch.
i) If all else fails, they can be dismissed because they are not "on-message". When using this option try to include a strawman argument to appeal to the faithful.
You can easily see that the list is valid with a couple of simple tests:
Professor Richard Lindzen. Fails 1 so passing to 2: Passes 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e (dubious), 2f FAIL!
Propagandist Bill McKibben: Passes 1.
QED
Notice that The Science is not a concern.
Well I guess a barb at a link deniers use a lot, is going to get a terse reply (as Sagebrush supplies)
But really it takes little effort to see the agenda of Global Warming Policy Foundation or GWPF as their web links deniers here usually post often.
Actually in looking them up for this I note this on their site
http://www.thegwpf.org/sunspots-march-20...
I guess all those denier theories of low sun spot activity causing a new ice age will now have to be thrown out or re-written, although I do note they are still trying to claim a link to climate change, when years like 1998 happened nowhere near the peak of the cycle of sunspots (although some deniers here like to pretend it was)
As for GWPF simply look at the "who are we" link you will find Benny Peiser he is joined at the hip to the denial movement, he co launched the site in 2009 with Lord Lawson, at the same time Peiser was also co editor of the denier pet Journal Environment & Energy, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree with these guys.
Look at the "ACADEMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL" and you see quite a few non-scientists and some names quite familiar to anyone who has followed the denial movement like Carter, Lindzen, McKitrick, Plimer, Shaviv and Svensmark most of the other names are from fields unrelated to climate at all Carter and Plimer are geologists, Shaviv and Svensmark are astrophysicists, McKitrick is an economist.
So little real climate science or understanding to be found in this group, which sadly is pretty standard for denier site experts.
Info on them can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warm...
I note with some humor that after all the denier bleating about FOI's, this organisation refuses FOI's on it's funding sources, but I don't think It would be a stretch to say the name Heartland is probably on the cheque's.
And for once sage is right 'think' is the key word here and very little of this happens at the GWPF
Just goes to show how smart climate science is. They can't figure it out so they assume it to be true and all agree on the assumption and then act as if everyone else is stupid. Their models continue to be wrong, yet they want people to believe them.
Who is more stupid? Chicken Little? or climate science? It's a toss-up IMO.
It doesn't matter where the AGW information comes from. They have no clue to start with so it doesn't matter where the information comes from.
The key word is 'think
Denier Think Tank is an oxymoron.
"The key word is 'think'! " Thinking of new ways to deny the science isn't very useful for humanity.
yes, all one has to do is be a little more skeptic and really check.
So? The key word is 'think'! That is something you should learn to do.
Linking to an article that supports their drivel illustrates how little some people know about GW, Zero in fact
